Primary study · included by 1 review

Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities of primary molars: a non-inferior split-mouth randomised clinical trial

Banon 2024 · Banon Reda, Vandenbulcke Jeroen, Van Acker Jakob, et al. · BMC Oral Health · 2024

Included by

Bioactive Glass-Based Materials Versus Conventional Materials for Primary Tooth Restorations: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Banon 2024 · Table 1; Figure 5

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.89, 1.12]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.88, 1.12]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.1]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 0.99 [0.9, 1.08]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.91, 1.11]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.01 [0.95, 1.06]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.01 [0.93, 1.09]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials · 3–36 months	RR .99 [.89, 1.10]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 0.99 [0.91, 1.08]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	Meta-regression slope (log RR per month) -0.0054 [-0.015, 0.004]	16 studies	GRADE not reported
Operator placement time (minutes) Bioactive composite (ACTIVA BioACTIVE) vs Compomer (Dyract eXtra) · Placement	MD -2.37 [-2.58, -2.16]	1 study · 86 participants	Low
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.01 [0.91, 1.11]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials · 3–36 months	RR 1.00 [0.96, 1.04]	16 studies · 1293 participants	High
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.11]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.1]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.89, 1.12]	15 studies	GRADE not reported
Clinical success/retention of restorations Bioactive glass-based restorative materials vs Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) · 3 to 36 months	RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1]	15 studies	GRADE not reported

1 including review in total.